iowa, on thursday to begin selling the benefits of the new law. >> lehrer: now, the republican perspective on what has happened. senator jon kyl of arizona is the minority whip, and he joins us now from the capitol. senator, welcome. >> thank you, good evening. captioning sponsored by >> lehrer: one of the things that president obama said macneil/lehrer productions today was that the rhetoric of health care reform has now been replaced by the reality of reform. do you see it that way? >> i think that both will >> lehrer: good evening. continue. i'm jim lehrer. when the reality of the cost president obama signed the health care reform bill into law of this legislation sinks in, today. the fact that insurance >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. premiums aren't going down, on the newshour tonight, the they're going to go up. east room ceremony capped a the tax increases of a massive amount will be needed to pay yearlong fight, which continued this afternoon with a senate for it. debate on a companion measure. that student loans are now being taken over by the we get the republican view from federal government as a way to arizona senator jon kyl. help pay for health care reform. >> lehrer: plus, what the law means for the nation's the cuts in medicaid, medicare, uninsured. rather. ray suarez gets an assessment those kinds of realities i from susan dentzer. think will sink in over time >> ifill: then, we look at . internet giant google's decision

i think you'll hear a lot more to shut down its china-based rhetoric especially as the search engine. election approaches talking about what i think is a very serious matter. i know the president was laughing and there was a lot of cheering. there weren't any republican legislators in that ceremony today because this was done on >> lehrer: spencer michels reports on the battle for the a purely partisan basis with republican u.s. senate slimest of margins. nomination in california. that's not the way that this kind of historic legislation, >> ifill: and jeffrey brown as he called it, should be passed. reports on the rift between the u.s. and israel over plans for i think there will be both reality and rhetoric. settlements in east jerusalem. >> lehrer: in the immediate future, senator, what are you and your fellow and sister republican senators going to be doing these next few days in these so-called fixes . >> we've laid down a couple of amendments. for example, my colleague john >> lehrer: that's all ahead on mccain just laid down an tonight's newshour. amendment to get rid of some of the special deals that are major funding for the pbs in the bill. republicans have been saying newshour is provided by: all along we have better ideas. democrats haven't taken them so far. i would be surprised if they start taking our ideas now. but we will offer amendments. we hope that our colleagues on

the democratic side would support us. but in any event we'll have an opportunity to talk about some of the things that we would like to have seen done in the legislation in the amendments that we offer. if any of them are accepted or if there are points of order that are upheld against the bill, then the bill will have to go back to the house of representatives for one final vote. i suspect by the end of the week roughly this so-called fix-it bill will end up being passed as well. >> lehrer: you think that there is, in fact, from your point of view there is in fact a health care reform bill now, the law of the land, right? >> indeed. the president signed it today. >> lehrer: so what happens the next few days is just a delaying formality? >> no, this is the process the democrats chose. remember the reconciliation process. we didn't choose it. what they intend to do here is to amend portions of the bill that they just passed. nancy pelosi said of the bill the president signed today, nobody wants to vote for that. there is a lot wrong with it. there is still a lot wrong

with it. there will still be a lot wrong about it after the so- called fix-it bill has been passed. i assume that it will be passedment. the process this week in the senate is to adopt the reconciliation bill that attempts to fix some of the things that are wrong in the bill the president signed today. >> lehrer: moving on, do you support the new calls to repeal the bill that the president has just signed today? >> our view is that we should repeal and replace the bill with the solutions that we think actually work. obviously the president will not sign a repeal bill that the congress passes, so that's more of a symbol. but we do think that over time both in the reconciliation process this week and then in the ensuing weeks that we can offer amendments to this new law that will perhaps address some of the very specific concerns the american people >> lehrer: it was a day of have had about the bill. triumph for the president and in that sense begin to change his party as the sweeping health it. reform bill was signed into law. eventually repealing big ray suarez begins our coverage. pieces of it. >> lehrer: just to make sure

i'm clear, i've got you clear >> suarez: democrats descended on the white house this morning here, you're not in favor of a to watch history made. massive attempt to repeal the ( cheers and applause ) whole bill right now? >> i'd love to see the bill repealed right now. >> lehrer: i mean, you're jubilant cheers greeted not.... >> barack obama as president president obama as he entered would never sign a repeal law. the east room, and after nearly we don't have the votes to get it passed right now. every sentence he spoke. we're not going to waste our he said the bill signing marked time on that. "a new season for america." >> lehrer: what about the lawsuits filed today by the >> today, after almost a century state attorneys general. do you support that, to repeal the bill? of trying; today, after over a >> sure. there have been a lot of very year of debate; today, after all serious constitutional scholars opining about portion the votes have been tallied, health insurance reform becomes of the law in the united states of bill's constitutionality. america. ( applause ) i don't know whether those arguments are valid or not. i do think they deserve to be aired out in court. today. i think it's a good thing, therefore, that these lawsuits >> suarez: the president also will settle the issue one way acknowledged the labors of or the other. >> lehrer: as you know, much decades, and especially this has been made of this. past year, to arrive at this through history, recent day. history in particular, >> it's been easy at times to republicans have opposed things like social security, medicare, even civil rights

succumb to the sense of cynicism legislation. about what's possible in this country. but then once they lost, they but today, we are affirming that essential truth, a truth every took some deep breaths and moved on. generation is called to finally they ended up rediscover for itself-- that we embracing many of these major are not a nation that scales changes back its aspirations, we are not a nation that falls prey to in laws and in the way doubt or mistrust. we do business here. ( applause ) is that going to happen with health care reform? >> suarez: with that, mr. obama >> jim, could i argue a little signed the most extensive change with with the premise. in domestic policy since the the civil rights are 1960s. legislation was pushed by the republicans. it was the southern democrats it's designed to extend medical coverage to more than 32 million who filibustered it. >> lehrer: i was thinking of uninsured americans. senator barry goldwater a but almost immediately, the colleague of yours in... from attorney general of florida and from arizona who did oppose... i'm not saying all more than a dozen others filed republicans. lawsuits, charging the new law i didn't mean to suggest all republicans. is unconstitutional. >> the civil rights legislation was a truly >> the freedoms of americans, bipartisan, historic and particularly in my state of bipartisan action. florida, were impaired by this and the last major bill, and it forces people to do medicare something in the sense of buying reform, namely the part-d medicare benefit for the drug benefit for seniors, that was a health care policy or pay a penalty, a tax or a fine that, a republican piece of simply, the constitution does not allow congress to do. legislation that got bipartisan support from >> suarez: and on cbs, the democrats as well. but that was a republican initiative. republican national chairman, but to your question, it is michael steele, called for ousting democrats from power, including the speaker of the true that when an entitlement

house. begins to be enjoyed by people, they like to keep it. >> nancy pelosi is the architect of the demise, in my view, of one of the democratic leaders in the house said, oh, we dare one-sixth of our economy. she should be fired for her the republicans to try to take failure to serve the interests away these benefits once the of the american people. people have begun to enjoy them. i think that's really part of >> suarez: the president took on what's behind this. the critics in his second event get the people dependent on of the day, a speech to health the united states government care reform advocates. for everything having to do with health care, even in the >> i heard one of the republican private sector, and we will leaders say this was going to be armageddon. have people dependent on the government and dependent upon us for political support. well, two months from now, six months from now, you can check that is a scary thing in this country. it out. we have been... we have relied we'll look around and we'll see. in the past on the very sacred relationship between patient and doctor. ( laughter ) you don't have to take my word for it. i want to save that. this legislation could insert >> suarez: back at the capitol, bureaucrats in between me and my doctor. the senate began debating a i don't like that. so that's why there will be house bill containing fixes to the new health reform law. efforts to repeal many of the aspects of this legislation as >> we're going to move forward time goes on. some are not bad. i'm not arguing that and make a good law, that we everything about the bill is just passed, signed by the bad or that we'll try to repeal it all. but some of the worst things president today, even better. >> suarez: it was unclear how about it and particularly long that will take. those things that end up republicans warned they're not rationing care, we are going

giving up the fight. to fight until we get them >> what we intend to do is to changed. offer a series of substantive >> lehrer: finally, senator, your colleague from arizona in amendments, the purpose of which is to try to correct some of the fundamental flaws. the senate now, senator john mccain has said that because i know we can't fix it, really, of what the democrats did in passing health care reform, republicans will not cooperate with democrats anymore on any other legislation from here to go. do you agree with the senator on that? are you going to support that some. >> well, on the major things like... that the president has talked about doing like immigration reform, for example, something senator mccain and i worked on before, it will be very, very hard to get bipartisan consensus on those things we used to have to some extent. in that sense, john mccain is right. i know john would agree with this too. every day particularly on regional matters and other things where there is less partisan politics there will be cooperation between house democrats and republicans. there always is. the procedure used here and ramming this through when the american people still oppose about 60-40 according to a poll three days ago from cnn i

think it will be much more difficult to get bipartisan action on big legislation. >> lehrer: the gridlock or the that's not the word. you tell me what... how would you describe the relationship in the united states senate now between the two parties about things that matter? >> well, it's become one person used the word poisonous. i would use the word political. i know you think it's always political here. but it's more partisan at an earlier point in the year, just march now, than ever. yes, we have an election in november. usually things start to get pretty partisan in about, oh, july or so. but now it just seems that everything is which party can get the advantage over the other. both parties are into that right now. obviously in my party we say the democrats started it first with their tactics to ram this bill through over the objection of the american people. in any event, that kind of partisan atmosphere today is going to make it very difficult to get the energy legislation, immigration, some of the other things that the president has talked about. >> lehrer: are the american

people going to enjoy watching this happen? >> you know, they really didn't enjoy seeing the process here. i think that's one of the reasons they are so angry. it's why you see the tea party movement. it's why you see the very low numbers of approval for the congress by the american people. they don't... they did not like what they saw here. they really didn't, i believe, i firmly believe this, jim, they really don't like the fact that they spoke clearly to us. we don't want this bill. only 20% believe it will or 19% believe that they will be better off. most of them, 73% said stop or stop and start over. and they don't like the fact that the elite in washington said no we know better. believe us. you'll like it once you have it. we're going to ram it through over your objections. that's what they really don't like. >> lehrer: senator kyl, thank you very much. >> thank you, jim. >> ifill: now we continue our look at who will be most affected by the health care bill. again, ray suarez picks up that part of the story tonight. >> suarez: one of the main goals of the new law is to make sure

most americans have insurance coverage. 32 million more americans would obtain coverage, beginning in 2014. that's about 94% of citizens and legal residents. to help us understand who will benefit and how they would get insurance, we're joined again by susan dentzer, editor-in-chief of the journal "health affairs" and a regular analyst for us. susan, the uninsured were at the center of thisht debate. who are they? who are the tens of millions of americans without health insurance today? >> we have about 36 million u.s. citizens in the country who lack health insurance today. we have another large group of undocumented, unauthorized immigrants who are also uninsured. of those 36 million, about 30 million of them are estimated to be poor enough to need some help buying health insurance. so we have, for example, about three quarters of the total uninsured are by and large low- income working people or people who are in the families of low-income working people.

kids whose parents are working typically lower-wage jobs. we also have a group of very high income uninsured people, however. there is a group of people who are uninsured who are earning 88,000 dollar a year or more who don't have health insurance. a lot of those tend to be younger people especially younger males who may think that sometimes they refer to as the young invincibles. people who don't believe they're going to get sick some day. it's a diverse array of people but the preponderance of the people are lower-income working americans. >> suarez: let's take a look at some of the proposals in the just-signed law to carve away at that big number of uninsured. first, changes in medicaid. there's an expansion of the program starting in 2014. new eligibility levels which i guess bring more people in. individuals earning $14,400-some a year or less. families of four earning a little over $29,000. now medicaid is a state and

federal program. how would this change work? >> in effect what's happening is we're turning medicaid into a true program for the poor. medicaid was set up to cover the poor. the irony is that it only covers about half the poor to this day. partly because of the way the eligibility rules differ from state to state. the largest single group of people left out of medicaid are adults who don't have dependent children. this is left over from the old welfare days where the attitude was well if you don't have kids you ought to be out there able body person working. now of course we're thinking people really do have trouble getting health insurance even if they are low-income working individuals. the biggest change is move up the eligibility to what is called 133% of the federal poverty level. that essentially mean s for a family of four , about income levels of up to close to $29,000 a year would be eligible to be ruled enrolled in medicaid. the largest single pool of those people is is going to

tend to be people who don't have families. single adults or adults who don't have dependent children. >> suarez: a big part of the debate centered on these insurance exchanges. in effect creating a marketplace for insurance for people who weren't otherwise able to buy it. so we'll have state-based marketplaces beginning in 2014 and a sliding scale of subsidies based on income. so if you're earning a certain income, you'll want to buy but can't afford it, you head to the exchange. how does that new marketplace work. >> absolutely right. basically everybody who is above that medicaid eligibility level that we just talked about becomes able to buy insurance through exchanges. every state is authorized to set up an exchange. the states will get money from the federal government to set them up. states don't have to do it. they can deaver to the federal government which will also set up a multistate exchange. there will actually be two exchanges in every state. one is for individuals to buy coverage.

another is for small businesses and self-employed people to buy coverage through. there will be standardized benefits packages. four different levels of them. the platinum plan, the gold plan, the silver plan. et cetera. >> suarez: describe who the buyers are. who are the sellers? who is in that exchange helping people who are seeking insurance buy it? >> the very same insurance companies by and large that are selling insurance now. they will just have to participate in the exchange and they'll have to sell these standardized benefits packages. so it's going to be kind of like walking into a food court where everybody has got to sell a hamburger. you're able to comparison shop among the hamburgers or everybody has got to sell roast beef. different levels. the subsidies are going to be available for people not only to reduce what they have to pay for their premiums but also for the cost sharing. deductibles, co-payments. those will change from 2% of... for example, the people with the lowest incomes will only

have to pay 2% of their income for a premium. the rest will be picked up by the subsidy. people at the high end up towards $88,000, you can claim a subsidy all the way up to being a family of four with $88,000, those people will have to pay 9.5% of their incomes in the health insurance premiums. in addition there are the separate subsidies to take... help people pay deductibles and co-payments . >> suarez: most americans get their health insurance through an employer but many who work for small businesses don't. the rules are going to change now. let's take a look at how the government is going to provide tax credits to help pay for coverage. will this create a new marketplace for small business people who want to insure their employees? >> once again, the states will be setting up a separate set of exchanges for small businesses where they can buy insurance coverage. the businesses will also get subsidies from the federal government. those start actually right this year.

up to 35% of what small business spends for the premium for its workers will be taken care of by the subsidy beginning this year. actually it's been estimated that ultimately as many as 60% of businesses in the country will be able to qualify for these subsidies. >> suarez: young adults are heavily uninsured. the rules are going to change for them too most notably you'll be able to stay on your parents' insurance until age 26. does this start right away? >> no, it takes effect six months after enactment. that has to be offered in an insurance plan. theoretically six months from now we'll see that benefit start to become available. then of course the day you turn 26, you're going to have to be subject to the individual mandate which we talked about last night. that's going to require everybody to have coverage. >> suarez: we've talked about ways that these different big groups will now be brought into insurance coverage. but everybody is agreeing that there will still be some 20-plus

million people uninsured. >> that's right. >> suarez: who are they. >> an estimated 23 million. the biggest single group will be unauthorized immigrants. that's about 8 million of that 23 million. we don't know what will happen with immigration reform down the line. those people may end up becoming citizens some of them. they may end up getting covered. looking at current law, we estimate those people, eight million or so, unauthorized immigrants will not have coverage. we have a group of people who will be eligible for medicaid but won't sign up . just the way life goes. people don't sign up for programs they're qualified for. if they ever get reely sick and show up at a hospital we'll be automatically enrolled in medicaid. then there will be people who will not be subject to the mandate because for religious reasons or affordability reasons. they'll be able to claim that they should be exempt from the insurance mandate. then we'll finally have a

group of people who will elect not to go covered and elect to pay the penalty. the mandate penalty instead of having coverage. all of that will add up to that figure of about 23 million. >> suarez: susan dentzer, thanks a lot. >> great to be with you, ray. >> ifill: still to come on the newshour: google's stand against censorship in china ; the battle for the republican senate nomination in california; and the tensions between the u.s. and israel. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan in our newsroom. >> sreenivasan: secretary of state hillary clinton led a high-power u.s. delegation to mexico today to talk about that country's escalating drug war. she acknowledged u.s. demand for narcotics is helping fuel the violence. the mexican foreign secretary, patricia espinosa, hosted the meeting. also present were u.s. defense secretary robert gates, admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs, and secretary of homeland security janet napolitano. the gathering came two weeks after an american consulate worker and her husband were gunned down in the mexican

border town of juarez. the sexual abuse scandal that's plagued the roman catholic church in the u.s. may be easing. the u.s. conference of catholic bishops reported today there were 398 allegations of abuse involving clergy last year. that's down 36% from the year before. most of the cases were decades old. the number of alleged offenders dropped 32%. most are dead, no longer in the priesthood, or have been removed from the ministry. a wave of new abuse allegations has come to light across europe in recent weeks. wall street had a good day after sales of existing homes fell less than expected last month. the dow jones industrial average gained nearly 103 points to finish well over 10,888. the nasdaq rose more than 19 points to close at 2,415. those are some of the day's main stories. i'll be back at the end of the program with a preview of what you'll find tonight on the news hour's web site. but for now, back to gwen. >> ifill: now, google's decision to protest chinese government

censorship. the news reached china early this morning, beijing time-- google had moved its search engine for chinese web surfers offshore. internet users who typed in the search engine's address were redirected to one based in hong kong, where the government does not censor web browsing. >> this is about the question of censorship, and it's a question of still trying to give the chinese users the most possible information uncensored. >> ifill: the world's most powerful internet company, which is only the third biggest in china's massive market, has agreed to voluntary limits on content since 2006. that included blocking searches for anything related to the 1989 crackdown in tiananmen square, the exiled dali lama, or the banned falun gong protest group. google's stance changed in january, after its email service was targeted by hackers. >> over the last year, we have seen a real tightening of the

screw and lots of sites being blocked and so forth, and then we had this cyber attack in december, which made it no longer possible to act under the same rules. and we really could not abide by censorship anymore. >> ifill: china employs extensive filters to police its 300 million users. the so-called "great firewall" automatically blocks social media sites like twitter and facebook, plus anything considered political or pornographic. the chinese government's reaction to google's decision was swift. >> ( translated ): we require foreign businesses operating in china to behave professionally, and do business legally. at the same time, we will manage the internet according to chinese legislation and rules. >> ifill: reaction among the chinese public was mixed. some people placed flowers on the google sign at its beijing headquarters in a sign of mourning, and sympathetic bloggers spoke up for the american company. >> ( translated ): the

government doesn't understand progressive production forces and advanced technology. how can they represent modern culture? they block the internet; they are an obstacle to the advancement of production forces in china. >> ifill: but others said the government is within its rights. isaac mao is an internet and social media expert in china. >> about 90% of internet users in china actually don't care whether google stays here or not. >> ifill: at the u.s. state department today, spokesman p.j. crowley said google's decision raises questions about u.s.-china business relations. >> were i china, i would seriously consider the implications when one of the world's most recognizable institutions has decided that it's too difficult to do business in china. and that has implications, but that ultimately is something for china to evaluate. >> ifill: for now, google says it will not close its research and sales division, which still operates in beijing.

for more on what's behind google's latest move, we turn to james fallows, national correspondent for "the atlantic" magazine. he's spent the last three years covering china and is working on a new book about the country and the government. and andrew lih, a writer on technology and media who has taught at hong kong university. he's a visiting professor at the university of southern california's annenberg school of communication and journalism. welcome to you both. >> thank you. >> ifill: jim fallows, after all this extended debate about whether or not google should allow itself to be censored in china, what forced their hands. >> i think i talked this afternoon with david drummond their chief legal officer who said even though the initial incident which provoked this was a hacking of some of their email accounts and other services that caused them to reconsider the whole bargain they made when they entered china four years ago. he argued that they ended up thinking that the premises on which they went in and they would help open up chinese exchange were not turning out. it was becoming more and more difficult to work. they weren't willing to be a

part of the censorship system themselves anymore. >> ifill: explain to those of us, people who have trouble remembering why hong kong is different from the mainland, for instance, why this move to hong kong changes the game for google or anyone. >> right. although hong kong is technically part of china, it actually is a very different regime there in the special administrative region there. it's actually very free there. freedom of expression, freedom of speech. you have dissidents operating there. falon gong operates freely there. it's a very different situation when you have servers located in hong kong, that means that google doesn't have to censor the content on the servers to comply with chinese law because the prc laws don't apply in hong kong. what you do have to contend with then is that users accessing google dot-com from china, they do have to deal with now the great fire wall or the filtering that happens across the international border there. that's something that is new even though google is is not censoring anymore, the prc

authorities are. >> ifill: in fact, jim, does it change really what happens? >> thps different for google because google now says we're not going to control what's on our site. we're not going to take this list which comes from the chinese every couple days and use it to scrub our results. for people inside mainland china it doesn't really make that much difference because the results are now being filtered by the chinese great fire walls that come in from hong kong. as andrew has written and i've written too. most people in china won't be affected by this decision that much. they already live within the chinese language info sphere. it's important symbolic moment. >> ifill: why not just pull out completely. is that a business decision? >> i think it's a business decision because china is the largest, most popular country on earth. it is now or will soon be the biggest internet market. google understandably wants to be part of that in the long run. i think they felt this part of their operation of being an active part of the censoring mechanism they just didn't want to do it anymore . >> ifill: google doesn't actually pull out completely from china.

it still has other business interests there. >> that's right. so the kind of services they put into hong kong are ones that are very sensitive in terms of content. that would include search, news and images. there's still a lot that they have left there in china including music, video, mapping. so those types of things which are less controversial and still pretty interesting for google in terms of revenue are still there in china and ( anroid operating system that they're trying to popularize on mobile phones around the world they're trying to use that in china. >> ifill: didn't we hear today that some of the mobile phone companies are saying they won't play with google anymore? mr. lih? >> that's something that is... that we're going to have to watch very carefully. a lot of partners in google in china now have a lot of hard questions to ask themselves. there is one report today that tom online, one of the most significant, you know, on-line and billboard advertising firms in china, has decided not to use the google searchen ji

... engine. it's interesting tom online in the past has agreed to employ censorship in its skip product that it co-markets with skype in china. we've seen this in the past with the direction that companies like tom have gone in china. >> ifill: jim, there is a real money-making incentive for google to stay. >> sure, yes. >> ifill: and to get access as well to talent, actual woman and manpower. >> sure, they have a very high- skilled research center in beijing that i've been too. google wouldn't have made this move because of dollars and cents because it can only cost them in china. china is a very, very important market. the mobile device market, everybody in china has a mobile phone. its will be by far the most important global market. the fact that they're doing this and some of their partners they'll reconsider it, it will be an economic problem for google even if there is some pr benefit, you know, unintended or intended in the rest of the world.

i think you have to recognize this as something they did more for the principle of it than saying, oh, yes, this somehow will be advantageous economically. >> let's talk about the principle. the chinese government says this is about our sovereignty. we get to decide. and google, the words they used today was this was very totally wrong. were you surprised at the pushback, the strength of the response? >> i was a bit surprised how strong the reaction was from the prc government. certainly this does damage a little bit of the impression that china is this market that everyone needs to rush into and be engaged with. for google to be one of the largest, you know, dot-com firms in the world to reconsider this, you know, is is it going to be the start of other companies doing the same type of thing or reconsidering what's going on? the fact that it's such a strong reaction with the prc government means they are probably irked as the way that google has set up shop now in hong kong to kind of straddle the two sides. i'd be interested to see what

james thinks about that as well. >> ifill: me too. what do you think about that? >> i think what's interesting is that google has made its move. there's further moves from the chinese government to see they're going to take further retaliatory steps. it will be very something next week, next month, next year, other western companies operating in china, what kind of rationale they're going to make for how they decide. are they going to play along with the censorship regime or not? i think there is a case to be made for staying in china as google made until two months ago. it will be an interesting time. >> we just heard the state department say if i were china, i would be worrying about our business relationship with these other countries. that was an interesting response. >> the chinese government will say, fine, you take care of your country. we'll take care of ours but i think it is actually in an unexpected way a really important moment inside china where many of the chinese intelligence i can't, people who cared about china's evolution feel what does this mean about our country in the long run if we can't have a company like google feel comfortable operating here.

>> ifill: does this kind of decision escalate this long- running debate not only between google and china but also the western world which believes in these kinds of internet freedoms and china? does it make it even more key right now? >> well, i think there are a lot of people who had very high expectations around google with its "don't be evil" mantra who were disturbed in 2006 the way that google entered the market who are cheering today. very glad that google having seen it tried to go into the china marbt in good faith and play by the rules and also the victim of at least they claim packing into their system that seemed to be pretty fishy. google's pulling out now has made a lot of those folks very happy. something to add to what james said before. i think it will be very interesting, only about 10% of the chinese public really cares about google. but even then that's a pretty significant number of folks who will now run into the great fire walls infamous error messages of connection

reset or connection interrupted. folks who might not have seen this type of error very much before. they might start to ask some questions they didn't before. that might be something that the authorities are also concerned about that a lot more chinese will now be running into the great fire wall that they may not have really experienced before. >> ifill: more shoes left to drop. andrew lih and james fallows, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> lehrer: next, some 2010 election politics. in california, three republicans are running for the chance to take on democratic senator barbara boxer in the fall. newshour correspondent spencer michels reports. >> reporter: conservatives who gathered at this recent event in california's silicon valley were practically giddy about republican prospects in the 2010 election. >> the mood of the country is really encouraging to me, because i've been seeing things go in the wrong direction for a

long time. >> as a republican, i'm optimistic this year. i think if we can't throw some of these democrats out, we'll never be able to. >> reporter: while california often votes democratic in national elections, republicans win their share of state contests. and this year, they believe they can cash in on popular anger over government spending and health care reform. they will choose between three candidates for u.s. senate in june-- candidates whose ideologies range from moderate to very conservative. at stake is the senate seat currently held by democrat barbara boxer, but also the direction of the republican party in the nation's most populous state. carly fiorina was c.e.o. of hewlett packard, the giant information technology firm; chuck devore is a california state assemblyman and a former army officer; and tom campbell, a former

congressman who had been running for governor, but switched to run for the senate. the three are united in their beliefs that third-term democrat boxer, with a voting record among the most liberal in the senate, is vulnerable. defeating her, they say, would be a big step in helping republicans recapture control of the senate. ( applause ) boxer has always been a favorite g.o.p. target, but this may be her toughest race. recent polls show her approval rating among voters has plummeted. >> nothing will stop us in november. no matter what the pundits are predicting. we're going to stay. we're going to fight and we're going to win. >> reporter: all three of boxer's rivals are trying to paint her as a symbol of what's wrong with washington and the democrats. the fiorina campaign recently came out with this bizarre internet video portraying boxer as a blimp. >> soon, her elitist image grew

so that it overwhelmed the capitol. >> reporter: leading recent polls is campbell, a former dean of the u.c. berkeley business school, and governor arnold schwarzenegger's former budget director. campbell is attacking boxer and the obama administration for fiscal irresponsibility. >> there is no plan for reducin. they know we printed so much money and borrowed so much money that the prospect of inflation is real. >> reporter: campbell is more moderate on social issues; he supports gay marriage and abortion rights. >> there was a time when there was a fight for the soul of the republican party. it was on the social issues. but that's not now-- the focus is on economics. and that's my strength. >> reporter: and he makes the case republicans should vote for him because he says he has the best chance of beating boxer. mark dicamillo, who directs the independent field poll, confirmed that.

>> campbell does better against boxer, mainly because he does better among non-partisan voters, the kind of voters who are kind of up for grabs in a statewide general election. >> reporter: his most recent poll showed campbell leading fiorina by six points in the primary, both of them tied with boxer. devore is trailing. but with the primary in june, it's still early in this campaign, and voter recognition of all three candidates is relatively low. and conservative republicans, who often dominate the voting in a g.o.p. primary, could spell trouble for campbell. >> we want somebody who is going to bring us lower taxes and less federal control of our lives. yeah, that's what we want. >> reporter: do you think tom campbell fits that bill? >> i don't know. i don't know. i'm a little skeptical here. >> reporter: many of these mostly republican voters, at a gathering in the foothills of the sierra nevada mountains,

prefer chuck devore, who has been avidly courting conservatives by claiming to be the "true" conservative in the race. >> rather than mandating that people buy health insurance... >> reporter: a retired national guardsman, devore is running a low budget campaign. he travels this huge state alone, often in rented cars, appealing to so-called "tea party" activists fed up with washington. >> it doesn't seem like anybody there, including republicans, are listening to the people of the country, and that's, of course, why the tea party thing started. i've never been so worried in my whole life about my country as i am today. >> reporter: recently, devore came to the old gold mining town of angels' camp, in northern california. this is the community mark twain made famous in his story, "the celebrated jumping frog of calaveras county." these days, many folks come here to retire, and they vote heavily republican, a natural audience for devore. >> the purpose of government is

to ensure our rights, not to try to run our lives from cradle to grave. the american public is beginning to awaken to the threat to their economic freedoms and their basic freedoms as americans with this massive expansion of government. >> reporter: devore is convinced he can garner votes across the political spectrum. >> it's not a right-wing phenomena. there are lots of reagan democrats, people who would have been called reagan democrats 30 years ago, declined to state.. a few libertarian people. when you think about the activism that's been unleashed by things like the stimulus program, and the concern about how in the heck are we ever going to pay for this, i think that is what exemplifies why this is going to be a different election. >> reporter: devore sees republican scott brown's election to the senate in usually-liberal massachusetts as a harbinger of what could happen in california.

carly fiorina thinks likewise. she signed the papers to run for office in san jose, not far from the h.p. headquarters, where she made her reputation as a tough, innovative executive in the world of high tech. her opponents like to point out that she was eventually fired from her post. now, after recovering from breast cancer, fiorina is campaigning against big government and career politicians. >> it has become virtually... much more difficult for those who create the american dream-- innovators, entrepreneurs, small business owners-- to build the foundation of the american dream. i have lived the american dream. >> reporter: while fiorina says she is conservative on social issues-- she opposes abortion rights-- her principal message is about jobs and the economy. >> i'm a fiscal conservative because i lived in the real world and i know what works. as the only candidate in the

race who's ever created a job, i know that if we want to create more jobs here in the state of california, then we must loosen the bonds of regulation, much of which flows from washington, d.c. we must cut taxes, in particular for innovators and entrepreneurs and small business owners. >> reporter: the most conservative candidates often win g.o.p. primaries in california, but with three candidates in the race, the winner only needs to beat the other two, since there is no runoff, says pollster dicamillo. >> that actually opens up an opportunity for a moderate like tom campbell to actually capture the nomination, since it would be possible, i think, to get 35% or 40% of the votes coming from moderates. and if they're behind campbell, then he has a good chance. >> reporter: whichever candidate republicans choose, dicamillio says he or she will have a tough battle, since democrats and independents account for two- thirds of the electorate in california.

but if the economy remains distressed, a fiscally conservative republican could defeat an incumbent like senator barbara boxer. >> ifill: finally tonight, jeffrey brown reports on a tense time between the u.s. and israel. >> brown: it was a standard stop for a visiting israeli prime minister as benjamin netanhayu came to capital hill this morning, and was treated to what these days in washington is a rare moment of bi-partisanship. >> i thank you for giving us that constant support and being unflagging in friendship. >> brown: last night, another, even more friendly, stop to the pro-israel lobby group known as aipac, the american-israel public affairs committee, holding its annual conference. but these are not normal times for israel and the u.s., and the

prime minister's visit has come after nearly two weeks of tension with the obama administration that's led to a sharp diplomatic rift. it began on march 9 in the midst of a visit by vice-president biden, when israel announced plans to build 1,600 new housing units in east jerusalem. the obama administration has called for a freeze on new building, and the announcement was taken as a public insult. >> because that decision, in my view, undermined the trust required for productive negotiations, i, at the request of president obama, condemned it immediately and unequivocally. ( applause ) >> brown: secretary of state clinton followed that with an heated phone call to prime minister netanyahu, demanding that israel put forward specific new measures to show it's serious about the peace process. in israel, since the settlement announcement, palestinian protesters have repeatedly

clashed with israeli forces. and jerusalem residents have weighed in. >> ( translated ): we expect netanyahu to implement the principles upon which he was elected. he was elected in order not to and to create more chances for give or hand out anything. >> mr. obama has to press, to apply pressure on israel, especially on netanyahu, to stop evictions and demolishing houses in east jerusalem. >> brown: american jews have also offered sharply different views. jeremy ben-ami, head of j street, a recently-formed advocacy group that supports a two-state solution with a shared jerusalem, supported the obama administration's stance. >> it can't be stated too clearly to the israeli people and to the government that a direct slap in the face to the vice-president of the united states, when he's come to the country to express the depth of the friendship, the warmth of the relationship, a commitment

to addressing iran, a commitment to stand with israel's security- - to do this to american credibility at that moment is deserving of that word, of "condemnation." >> brown: ben-ami says recent events expose divisions within the american-jewish community. >> there are those who would fall on a more conservative side of the political spectrum and believe that compromise and peace is not possible, and believe that there are only military solutions and only one winner. and then, there are those in the american jewish community who believe in a win-win solution, and believe in the necessity, the existential necessity, of a palestinian state and a two- state resolution, and those voices are both being heard now in the community, as they are heard in israel. >> brown: but elliot abrams, a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations and former bush administration official, says a majority of american jews are increasingly worried about the state of affairs between the u.s. and israel.

>> my judgment is that most american jews at this point think the obama administration is simply unsympathetic to israel, the president is unsympathetic to israel. this has been a kind of sentiment in the community over the past year, though nobody wants to say much about it in public, partly because most jews are democrats. >> brown: abrams calls the obama administration actions of the last weeks "way over the top." >> in previous administrations, people have gotten annoyed, they told the israelis they were annoyed, but they haven't turned it into a crisis. the administration chose to make this into a crisis, and the moment you see that is the use of the word "condemned." we use "condemn" in diplomatic parlance almost exclusively for acts of murder and terror. we do not use it for acts of city planning. ( applause ) >> brown: yesterday, continuing official differences were aired at the annual aipac meeting. secretary clinton spoke in the morning, reiterating the strong and close ties of the two countries, and drawing a strong ovation when she talked of their

mutual stance toward iran. but the hall was noticeably quieter as she continued to press on israel's new building. >> new construction in east jerusalem or the west bank undermines that mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides say they want and need. and it exposes daylight between israel and the united states that others in the region could hope to exploit. it undermines america's unique ability to play a role-- an essential role-- in the peace process. >> brown: but that night, in his address, netanyahu gave no ground. >> the jewish people were building jerusalem 3,000 years ago, and the jewish people are building jerusalem today. ( applause ) jerusalem is not a settlement; it's our capital.

>> brown: next stop-- the white house this evening, as president obama hosts prime minister netanyahu behind closed doors in an attempt to clear the air, and begin to move mideast peace negotiations back on track. >> lehrer: again, the major developments of the day: president obama signed the health reform bill into law. he said it marked "a new season for america." and the senate began considering changes in the law. republicans planned to raise scores of amendments in a bid to slow or change the bill. the newshour is always online. hari sreenivasan, in our newsroom, previews what's there. hari. >> sreenivasan: our coverage of health care continues with an interview with politico's white house editor craig gordon on how the reform push could affect the midterm elections; and a q&a with congress watcher norm ornstein about what happens next in the senate. spencer michels blogs about his reporting on the california senate race and the golden state's political landscape. plus, we've posted a dispatch from margaret warner in yemen.

and for something totally different, there's a conversation with katie spotz, the young woman who recently rowed solo across the atlantic ocean. that's all on "the rundown" all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. >> ifill: and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm gwen ifill. >> lehrer: and i'm jim lehrer. we'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening with an interview with house speaker nancy pelosi, among other things. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour is provided by:

and with the ongoi support of these institutions and foundations. and...

this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org